SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Yadav And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 February, 2020

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

?Court No. – 74

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. – 4166 of 2020

Applicant :- Deepak Yadav And 2 Others

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- K.K. Tripathi

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon’ble Ram Krishna Gautam,J.

The applicants namely, Deepak Yadav, Somil Yadav and Ram Sajeevan, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Court with prayer for setting aside entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 177 of 2017, Seema Gautam Vs. Pradeep Yadav and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 506, 354 I.P.C. Section 3/4 of D.P. Act and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Ngar, pending in the court of Sepcial Judge (SC/ST Act), Kanpur Nagar along with summoning order dated 29.11.2019.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the applicants argued that it was a love marriage in between complainant Seema Gautam and Pradeep Yadav. Applicants were of no concern. They have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number whereas father has previously made a declaration regarding a severance of his relation with his son Pradeep Yadav. But this false accusation is there. Hence, for ensuring end of justice, this application has been filed with above prayer.

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the above prayer.

From the very perusal of impugned summoning order, it is apparent that this was made on the basis of inquiry made by Presiding Judge, wherein, statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. was got recorded. It was contention of complainant that she was a member of Scheduled Caste community and was married with Hindu rituals with Pradeep Yadav, on 6.4.2012, it was a court marriage too. She was at her nuptial house, where, subjected to cruelty with regard to demand of additional dowry. She was blessed with a she child on 22.8.2014, at Kabir Hospital. Because of this, she was further subjected to cruelty, assault, with demand of Rs. 1,50,000/-, as dowry and was ousted from her house. Then after, she was residing at separate house as tenant and came to her maternal house. On 19.3.2017, her husband Pradeep Yadav, elder brother-in-law Deppak Yadav, wife of Deepak Yadav, Somil Yadav and father-in-law Ram Sajeevan, did assault and abused her by her caste. There was robbery of her ornaments. She was extended threat of dire consequences. She could save herself. Accused persons ran from spot while extending threat of dire consequences. This contention is there in the statement recorded under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. as of complainant and under Section 201 of Cr.P.C. as of her witnesses and on the basis of these statements, accused Pradeep Yadav, Deepak Yadav, Somil Yadav and Ram Sajeevan were summoned for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498A, 506, 354 I.P.C. and 3/4 of D.P. Act 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act. Hence, it cannot be said that there is no evidence for passing of impugned summoning order.

This Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is not expected to make analytical analysis of evidence and fact of the case, as the same is the question before trial court. Hence, this proceeding merits its dismissal.

Dismissed, accordingly.

However, in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applicants appear and surrender before the court below within thirty (30) days from today and apply for bail, then the bail application of the applicants be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

For a period of thirty (30) days from today or till the disposal of the application for grant of bail, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicants.

However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below, within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of, accordingly.

Order Date :- 3.2.2020

Kamarjahan

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation